There is no way I would send it back to Nikon (at my expense). I would tell the seller that it was not "of merchantable quality" and reject it, but I am in the UK where I can do that. If you paid by credit card, the card company is also liable and will re-fund you. After reading your link, seems like you may actually be better off with a good non OEM copy?

Ironheart said:
I'm still a bit baffled as to why you won't just call Nikon and see what they say. Or better yet take it to where you purchased it. At the very least they will usually offer to cover the shipping back to Nikon for repair. I'll bet you Nikon will repair under warranty no questions asked. Forget about all the Internet naysayers and go for it!

Well, because I did contact them, mate... That was the first thing I did after putting the grip back in its original packaging.

And even after sending them pictures they won't go beyond "we can't yet tell you what it's gonna cost or if it's covered by the warranty, so send it to us first and we'll charge you for the shipping".

So, since this is not my first experience with Nikon, and they systematically have been bad, I'm building a case.

And of course it will be shipped via the shop which sold it to me... they are legally responsible for that as long as the mandatory 2 year warranty is in play, in the EU.

I'm still a bit baffled as to why you won't just call Nikon and see what they say. Or better yet take it to where you purchased it. At the very least they will usually offer to cover the shipping back to Nikon for repair. I'll bet you Nikon will repair under warranty no questions asked. Forget about all the Internet naysayers and go for it!

msmoto said:
@ GhostRider117.... can you post a nice macro photo of the broken part/grip? And, how many clicks on the D7000 with the grip on it?

About 3000 clicks with the grip on.

Edit: not my picture, but exactly the same issue...
http://www.flickr.com/groups/d7000-club/discuss/72157632080808727/

One of the comments mentions Nikon agreeing to repair it under warranty... only one I've seen so far.

@ GhostRider117.... can you post a nice macro photo of the broken part/grip? And, how many clicks on the D7000 with the grip on it?

I don't have an MB-D11, but I do have the 10. It's built like a tank, so I'm surprised to hear of your problem. I don't know what jurisdiction you fall under, but I would suggest if you've only had it 4 months, take in back to the seller and demand an exchange/refund.

Well, yes, it's supposed to be under warranty (2 years mandatory warranty in EU).

Except that from what I've read about user experience on this issue is that Nikon refuses to fix it under warranty, arguing that this is not covered. Basically, they're saying that the build quality is fine and that you broke it yourself by using it instead of keeping it in the box.

So, if I have sufficient information to show that this is a recurring issue, then I can show that this is their fault, and that it should be covered by the warranty.

Isn't it under warranty? What's the need for pressure on Nikon then, have they said the wouldn't fix it?

After 4 months of light use, the joystick of my Nikon MB-D11 just broke into two halves while I was switching AF points... I've seen other reports of exactly the same issue elsewhere (incl. Amazon.com reviews).

Has anyone here had the issue? I'm building a case to put pressure on Nikon so that they repair it under warranty, as this is obviously a build quality default...

Thanks,

I think that if I had a D800, the last thing I would do is a hack to 'up' the FPS. You may find that there is a mechanical resonance that will destroy your mirror assembly or whatever - I don't like that 'cross your fingers and hope' approach - remember the six P's?

What I am saying is that a hackers skills are not in any way a replacement for an engineers!

msmoto said:
Funny, my D4 at 8 FPS sounds a heck of a lot faster.... maybe the D4 has shorter seconds.... Actually in my test of listening to the video and timing, on about 10 trials the time for the "9 shots" was 1.3 seconds which comes out to less than 7 shots per second. Strange, a D300s does 7 FPS. A D300 does 6, or with the battery pack 7 on C,low, 8 on C,hi.

But the real issue is this. It is my experience one does not usually shoot a single second, but often will be shooting multiple bursts. Also, why does Nikon limit the frame rate unless one has the grip? Maybe it has to do with some other factor.

I find the video interesting, yet it would be my thinking to just shoot the camera at the 6 FPS rather than fiddle around to get some function the original design was not intended to do.

Of course, someone might say Nikon just wants to sell grips to make money, but I really doubt that is the whole story. Ah, the skeptic has spoken....

The FPS limit without grips comes down to the batteries used. The EN-EL15 does not have the same voltage as the EN-EL18 or 8AA batteries (which are required in the D800 for faster FSP). The same issue arose with the D300, D300s and D700 with the EN-E3e without the grip, vs the EN-EL4a or AA batteries in the grip. The grip itself adds nothing, if all you put in is a EN-EL15 (or EN-EL3e).

You also notice that, with the right batteries in the grip, that shutter lag was reduced on the D300 and D700. It all comes down to the voltage of the batteries.

I dont think nikon is doing it to sell grips. I believe that its to do with having to balance several factors especially the rigorous requirements of a Pro that needs reliability.

We all know that we can overclock our PC but in doing so it risks system failure in several ways.
1) overheating
2) Motherboard failure from brownout due to insufficient power supply wattage/voltage.
3) Other components not being able to keep up, like memory, video, hardisks, etc..
4) CPU failure. this will be due to sample variation... as they say YMMV.

Having said that I have always over clocked my PC :-) but I then don't run Patient monitoring software or Air trafic control systems.

Also how many points of functionality do you need? and what are the compromises will you accept? I may like 20 FPS to shoot my baby first steps! So what if with that functionality the camera may fail after 50K shots? I will never reach that number. So why cant I have a camera with the 20FPS capability? just over clock the cpu already! give me a turbo button! LOL !

Or maybe give me the capability to have 3, 3.5, 4, 4.5, 5, 5.5, 6, 6.7, 7.2, 7.7 FPS..

It does have a 2MP 30FPS setting... :-P

OK, Throughput is a limiting factor. Does the D800 have a buffer before the Expeed processor? There is one after the Expeed processor. If the camera buffers then processes then buffers then writes to CF or SD card the processor throughput itself may not be the limiting factor. Just as CF or SD write speed is not a limiting factor because the buffer fills if the card is too slow.

donaldejose said:
Oh, I wouldn't be quite so dismissive.

Underlying this question is an assumption which I believe is valid: unlike the old 35mm film cameras which were mechanical devices the current DSLRs are more like computers in that they have hardware and software. If the FPS limit is a hardware limit it cannot be changed. If the FPS is a software limit it can be hacked. If the hardware can run at 5 FPS in DX it could also run at 5 FPS in FX. Most likely a software limit has been created so as to keep the buffer from filling up and disabling the camera while waiting to write to the CF card. Note this report of how many shots the buffer holds at various settings

"Shooting stills pictures in the FX format, recording NEF Raw files, at 14-bit and uncompressed, the camera generates a 74.4MB file, and the camera’s buffer memory has the capacity for 16 frames. Recording NEF Raw files, at 12-bit and lossless compressed the file size is reduced to approximately 32.4MB and the buffer capacity is increased to 21 frames. In the smaller DX format, when recording NEF Raw files, at 14-bit and uncompressed, the camera generates a 32.5MB file, and the camera’s buffer memory has the capacity for 25 frames. Recording NEF Raw files, at 12-bit and lossless compressed the file size is reduced to approximately 14.9MB and the buffer capacity is increased to 38 frames. While a JPEG file at the greatest resolution in the FX format produces a file of approximately 16.3MB, and 8.0MB in the DX format, with a buffer capacity of 56 and 100 frames, respectively."

http://www.pixiq.com/article/the-nikon-d800-official-announcement

I suspect the FPS limitation is not in the hardware but was deliberately set in the software to keep customers from complaining that their camera froze up after a few shots. If the buffer can only hold 16 RAW 14 bit files and you are shooting at 4 FPS your buffer will be full in 4 seconds. Lets use that 4 second buffer fill time as our goal. If the software allowed you to shoot at 6 FPS your buffer would be full in 2.6 seconds. Customers would feel the camera should shoot for more than 2.6 seconds before freezing up waiting for the buffer to clear. Hence the 4 FPS limit programmed into the software. Now just how fast would the hardware allow the D800 to run? Could it make 10 FPS, like the D4? We don't know. One would think the shutter and the autofocus could do it. One would think the real limit is file size. But, if you shoot JPEG 16 mb files and the buffer can hold 56 of those frames at 4 FPS you can now shoot for 14 seconds before the buffer is full. Well, why not have the option to shoot 8 FPS for 7 seconds in 16 mp JPEG format? See, it would be possible to shoot faster FPS and still not fill that buffer so quickly if you shot in a format which produced smaller files. Nikon chose to not give us that choice. Why? Because the camera is not physically able to perform it mechanically? Or because Nikon did not want to compete with the D4? Or because Nikon thought customers would not understand the higher FPS should only be used when shooting JPEG? Reasonable questions for which we will never get the answers!

I suspect the FPS limitation is controlled by the software and could be changed by "hacking." I am sure it could be pushed from 4 to 5 FPS in FX and most likely to 6, 7 or 8 FPS when shooting JPEG if someone "hacked" into the software. Most likely no one will do it because it won't be worth the time and effort required.

Interesting post. All images (RAW or JPEG) have to go through the ADCs and other hardware within the EXSPEED imaging processor on the camera .Some idea as to the throughput of EXSPEED 3 (quite crude I know):

The D800 can deal with 144MP/s effectively at FX mode (4fps/36.3MP) , and 91.8 MP/s in DX mode (6fps/15.3MP)
The D4 can handle about 162MP/s in FX (10 fps/16.2MP), and 79.2 Mp/s in DX mode (11 fps/7.2MP).

Assuming the same throughput rate at FX and DX then the D800 should be theoretically capable of 10FPS @ 15.3MP. Wonder if it's the sensor which is limiting the frame rate?

Funny, my D4 at 8 FPS sounds a heck of a lot faster.... maybe the D4 has shorter seconds.... Actually in my test of listening to the video and timing, on about 10 trials the time for the "9 shots" was 1.3 seconds which comes out to less than 7 shots per second. Strange, a D300s does 7 FPS. A D300 does 6, or with the battery pack 7 on C,low, 8 on C,hi.

But the real issue is this. It is my experience one does not usually shoot a single second, but often will be shooting multiple bursts. Also, why does Nikon limit the frame rate unless one has the grip? Maybe it has to do with some other factor.

I find the video interesting, yet it would be my thinking to just shoot the camera at the 6 FPS rather than fiddle around to get some function the original design was not intended to do.

Of course, someone might say Nikon just wants to sell grips to make money, but I really doubt that is the whole story. Ah, the skeptic has spoken....

fishnose said:
Note to Ron800: No, in FX mode you can never get more than 4fps. Regardless of grip/battery.

Oops, sorry. Edited my comment above.

That's really cool! Thanks for posting it. If I had one of those bodies I would set it up that way.

I wouldn't call that "hacking" actually. It is just custom settings that allow faster FPS. Seems useful to me when you want a quick burst and certainly won't harm the camera.

I would define "hacking" as going into the camera's software and changing that software in some way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG5UKwgGRJI

There you go donald. The guys video is pretty terrible but you get the idea.

If fishnose is correct, and I have no reason to think he isn't, then efforts at hacking the D800 FPS are futile because the processor just cannot process the data faster. Give it half the data to process and it can do it twice as quickly. If you want a fast FPS camera you will have to have lower megapixels.

Yet, I cannot help but be intrigued by SquamishPhoto's post which suggests there is some menu setting in the D700 and D300 which can cause those cameras to run at higher FPS. SquamishPhoto, can you enlighten those of us who have never heard of this before?

I cannot think of a situation where it would be critical to have five FPS over four FPS. And I shoot race cars and bikes. Yes, the difference between 5 FPS and 10 FPS, you might get that bike rider completely upside down where he/she would be only half upside down with the slower speed. At 40 mph, the object is moving nearly 60 feet per second. At 10 FPS, a shot every six feet, at 5 FPS, one every 12 feet. at 4 FPS, one every 15 feet.
To argue about the difference in 4,5,or 6 seems like the issue must be something else. And if the FPS is most important then the D4 or D3s, D3 is maybe the way to go and not a D800.

Just my thoughts.

fps has nothing whatsoever to do with buffer size and the camera's ability to move data from buffer to CF & SD.
Buffer size only limits the number of shots that can be held before the buffer is full and the fps rate drops off.

Maximal fps relates to the speed at which data can be converted from analog to digital and moved from the sensor subsystem to primary memory (the buffer). Other stuff like shifting the mirror etc is all a piece of cake compared to that.
36 million pixels generate a lot of data to move, and at a 4 fps rate that would be 14 bits per pixel times 36 million pixels times 4 per second. Now that is a LOT of data to shift - about 2 gigabits/second, in fact.

Considering that this has to be done with almost no power use (just one little battery must handle about a thousand of these processes, plus everything else demanded of the camera's other subsystems) and with processors that must live without any kind of cooling other than a tiny heatsink, this is nothing short of incredible.
Compare to a typical PC CPU that burns 60-100 watts under load. And a typical GPU burns a lot more than that.

My feeling is that it is truly remarkable that we get this kind of functionality at such a decent price. Before the D800 specs were announced, I wasn't expecting anything close. Least of all the price.

About performance: Of course things will change - the next generation of sensors, processors, firmware, buffer chips and memory bus will give data rates significantly higher than this. Obviously. That's how it works.

About the idea of a DX hack: why bother with trying to get 6 fps if you already have 5 fps? Is it just as a matter of principle?

Note to Ron800: No, in FX mode you can never get more than 4fps. Regardless of grip/battery.

People said that about 12mpx 7 years ago...

Whalespew said:
The d800 does 4 fps stock, but this increases to 6 fps with the optional MB-D12 grip. Somehow the add on grip is "necessary" for the faster fps, even though this is a digital device.

The increase in fps has nothing to do with the MB-D12 grip itself, but with the extra power it enables you to use.

The EN-EL15 battery will only allow 4 fps in FX mode and 5 fps in DX mode, it doesn't matter if you put it the camera or in the grip. The MB-D12 battery grip however will give you two other options: a bunch of AA size batteries or the optional EN-EL18 battery + BL-5 battery chamber cover. Both options wil give you 6 fps in DX mode, but still 4fps in FX mode.

I don't think the D800 was designed for more speed. Imagine what the increased mirror slap would do to a 36MP image!

Godless said:
I suspect the D800 was not designed for fps from the beginning. Hacking the fps limit may result in overheating or other nasty problems, so I would not tamper with an expensive camera. For most applications, patience and good technique will make up for the fps loss vs faster cameras. Sure, you miss something but take the time and you will also get the shots you want. For situations you absolutely must nail on the first try, borrow or rent a faster fps body instead.

Remember to breathe.

This isn't about suspicions, its about the existing potential of the camera while using a grip and how its likely possible that through playing with settings(not playing with firmware) that one can run the camera's shutter at its highest frame rate without the grip. Its not going to make your camera overheat and its not going to void a warranty. Id hardly be shocked if the hack is in the same menu as it is for the D300 and the D700.